Karnataka High Court

Sri Manjunatha, Now (Chc10) vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 September, 2025

Author: S.G.Pandit

Bench: S.G.Pandit

-1-
WP No. 5313 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

WRIT PETITION No. 5313 OF 2022 (S-KSAT)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI MANJUNATHA,
NOW (CHC10),
S/O LATE CHALUVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
WORKED AS POLICE CONSTABLE
HULLAHALLI POLICE STATION,
NANJANGUD TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT-573101
AT PRESENT WORKING AS HEAD CONSTABLE,
POLIC STATION, YELAWALA POLICE STATION,
MYSORE TALUK, MYSORE 571130.
...PETITIONER
Digitally signed
by VALLI
MARIMUTHU (BY SRI SRIDHAR G. BIDRE, ADVOCATE FOR
Location: HIGH SRI RAGHAVENDRA G. GAYATRI, ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
(BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WRONGLY
MADE AS UNDER SECRETARY)
INTERNAL DEPARATMENT POLICE SERVICE -B,
DEPARTMENT OF HOME,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE 560001.
-2-
WP No. 5313 of 2022

2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY (SOUTH ZONE)
MYSORE 570008.

3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY,
MYSORE DISTRICT,
MYSORE 570004.

4. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
RURAL SUB DIVISION AND
PRE ENQUIRY OFFICER,
MYSORE DISTRICT,
MYSORE 570004.

5. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND
ENQUIRY OFFICER,
PRIYAPATNA CIRCLE,
MYSORE DISTRICT 571107.
...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI B. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R1 TO R5)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 18/05/2021 IN APPLICATION No.7068/2017
VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA
STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AND ALLOW THE
APPLICATION No.7068/2017.

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 21.08.2025, THIS DAY
K. V. ARAVIND J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
WP No. 5313 of 2022

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

C.A.V. ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND)

The present writ petition under Articles 226 of the

Constitution of India is filed by the unsuccessful applicant

challenging the order dated 18.05.2021 passed in Application

No.7068/2017 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal,

Bengaluru.

2. The facts in brief are that, while the petitioner was

serving as a Police Constable at Hunsuru Rural Police Station,

he was placed under suspension by respondent No.3. An

Enquiry Officer was appointed and articles of charge were

issued. The petitioner denied the charges by filing his reply. An

enquiry was thereafter conducted. Three charges were framed

against the petitioner. Upon considering the evidence of PWs.2

and 5, the Enquiry Officer held that Charges 1 and 2 were

proved, while Charge 3 was not proved, and submitted his

report on 30.01.2015. A show-cause notice was issued, to

which the petitioner submitted a detailed reply. A corrigendum

to the charges was also issued. Thereafter, respondent No.3,
-4-
WP No. 5313 of 2022

by order dated 14.08.2015, imposed the punishment of

reduction of pay to the minimum of the scale i.e., from

Rs.12,500-24,000 to Rs.12,500/- for a period of three years

without cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the order of

punishment dated 14.08.2015, the petitioner preferred an

appeal before respondent No.2. The Appellate Authority, by

order dated 01.07.2016, dismissed the appeal. The petitioner

preferred application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, under

impugned order, rejected the application. Hence, the petitioner

is before this Court.

3. Sri. Sridhar G. Bidre, learned counsel appearing for

Sri. Raghavendra G. Gayathri, learned counsel for the

petitioner, submits that the Enquiry Officer has held Charges 1

and 2 to be proved against the petitioner on the basis of the

evidence of PWs.2 and 5. Learned counsel, however, relying on

the very evidence of PWs.2 and 5, submits that the testimony

of PW.2 merely states that when the PSI, Assistant

Commissioner, and Tahsildar visited Hanagodu Village to seize

illegal sand, a member of the public showed a photograph and

alleged that the police had collected money. It is contended
-5-
WP No. 5313 of 2022

that the said evidence of PW.2 is not specifically directed

against the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel further submits that even on a

consideration of the evidence of PW.5, nothing incriminating is

made out against the petitioner. It is urged that the finding

recorded against the petitioner on the basis of the testimonies

of PWs.2 and 5 is without any foundation. It is further

submitted that the Tribunal, without adverting to the aforesaid

aspects, proceeded to dismiss the application.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed

reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary,

Department of Panchayati Raj, Lucknow v. Ram Prakash

Singh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 891, to contend that any

document relied upon must be proved by examining a witness

having knowledge of its contents and capable of deposing as to

its authenticity. It is urged that in the present case, the person

who handed over the photograph of the petitioner was not

examined, nor was its authenticity established. Hence, the said

photograph cannot be relied upon as evidence against the

petitioner.
-6-
WP No. 5313 of 2022

6. Per contra, Smt. B. Sukanya Baliga, learned AGA

appearing for the respondents, submits that the petitioner was

found to have engaged in illegal collection of money for

permitting sand mining. It is contended that the evidence of

PWs.2 and 5 clearly identifies the petitioner as having visited

Hanagodu Village for the purpose of collecting money to

facilitate such mining. Relying on the testimony of PW.5,

learned AGA further submits that the petitioner was actively

supporting illegal sand mining and was frequently enquiring

about the movements of the PSI so as to alert the miners in the

event of any inspection.

7. It is submitted that the Enquiry Officer, on

consideration of the aforesaid evidence, has rightly held that

the petitioner was collecting money to permit illegal transport

of sand. It is further submitted that the Tribunal, upon due

appreciation of the evidence and the findings of the Enquiry

Officer, has rightly rejected the application.

8. We have given our anxious consideration to the

submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties

and have carefully perused the writ papers.
-7-
WP No. 5313 of 2022

9. Three charges were framed against the petitioner.

The Enquiry Officer recorded the evidence of six witnesses. On

the basis of the evidence of PWs.2 and 5, the Enquiry Officer

held Charge No.1 to be proved. Charge No.2 was held proved

on the basis of the testimony of PW.5. The proved charges are

as below:

ಆ ೋಪ :- 1. ಇವರು ಾ ಾ ಸರಹ ನ ಮರಳ ಾ ಾ
ನ ೆಸುವ ದರ ಮೂಲಕ ಮರಳ ದಂ!ೆ ನ ೆಸುವವರ "ೊ#ೆ
$ಾ%ೕ&ಾ', ಇ&ಾ(ಾ ಘನ#ೆ*ೆ ಕುಂದು ಉಂ,ಾಗುವಂ#ೆ
ವ./0ರುವ ದರ ಮೂಲಕ ದುನ/ಡ#ೆ ಪ2ದ3/0ರುವ ಬ*ೆ5.

2. ಾ ೆಯ 7ೕ&ಾ89ಾ:ಯವ:*ೆ ಕತ/ವ<ದ
ಸಹಕ:ಸ=ೇ, ಾ ೆಯ ಾ>.ಗಳನು? ಸ@Aೕಯ
ಮುಖಂಡರು Cಾಗೂ ಾಜEೕಯ ವ<EFಗಳ .Aಸುವ ದು,
ಾಜEೕಯ ಒತFಡ ತಂದು ಕತ/ವ< Hವ/>ಸಲು ಅಡಚ ೆ
ಉಂಟು ಾಡು.Fರುವ ದರ ಮೂಲಕ LೇಜMಾLಾ: Cಾಗೂ
Hಲ/NO#ೆ ಪ2ದ3/0ರುವ ಬ*ೆ5.

10. Insofar as Charge No.1 is concerned, reliance is

placed on the evidence of PWs.2 and 5. PW.2, a Police

Constable at Hunasuru Rural Police Station, deposed that when

he, along with the PSI, Tahsildar and Assistant Commissioner,

visited Hanagodu Village on 07.09.2013 to seize illegal sand, a

member of the public produced a photograph of the petitioner

before the Assistant Commissioner, stating that the person in
-8-
WP No. 5313 of 2022

the photograph was regularly collecting money for permitting

illegal sand mining. In his cross-examination, PW.2 admitted

that the said photograph was shown to him at the police

station. He further admitted that the petitioner had been

marked in the said photograph and that his identification of the

petitioner was based on such marking.

11. PW.5, also a Police Officer, deposed that the

petitioner was in the habit of writing anonymous complaints

against the staff, was obstructing other Police Officers in the

discharge of their duties, and was passing crucial information to

political leaders. He further stated that the villagers of

Hanagodu, by showing a photograph of the petitioner to the

Assistant Commissioner, alleged that the petitioner was

collecting money from illegal sand miners. PW.5 also deposed

that, during inspection of vehicles to prevent illegal sand

mining, the petitioner was exerting pressure and influence

through political leaders so as to prevent action against illegal

sand mining. In cross-examination, however, PW.5 admitted

that his deposition was based on what he had heard from the

villagers of Hanagodu when they informed the Assistant

Commissioner. With regard to the allegation of writing
-9-
WP No. 5313 of 2022

anonymous complaints against the staff, PW.5 admitted that he

had no specific details.

12. The Enquiry Officer concluded that Charge Nos.1

and 2 stood proved. However, though the findings are stated to

be based on the evidence of PWs.2 and 5, such evidence is

insufficient to establish the charges. The testimonies of PWs.2

and 5 do not specifically identify the petitioner in the

photograph. Moreover, the photograph, by itself, cannot carry

any evidentiary value to prove that the petitioner was collecting

money for permitting illegal sand mining. There is no material

to establish the presence of the petitioner in the village or to

prove collection of money as alleged in the charge. The findings

recorded by the Enquiry Officer are, therefore, vague and

without any basis.

13. Similarly, with regard to Charge No.2, PW.5

deposed that the petitioner was obstructing inspection of sand

lorries by exerting political influence and was communicating

details of station movements to political leaders. However, the

testimony of PW.5 is vague and without any supporting

material. There is no cogent evidence on record to substantiate

either of the charges.
- 10 -
WP No. 5313 of 2022

14. The Tribunal recorded that the petitioner was

afforded an opportunity to cross-examine all the witnesses and

was also given an opportunity to lead defence evidence, which

he did not avail. The Tribunal, without appreciating the

contentions advanced by the petitioner and the reliance placed

on various judgments, proceeded to hold that it could not re-

appreciate the evidence.

15. There is no dispute that the scope of interference in

disciplinary proceedings under judicial review is limited.

However, it is always open to the Court to examine the

decision-making process. In the present case, the charges have

been held proved solely on the basis of the evidence of PWs.2

and 5. The testimony of these witnesses is vague,

contradictory, and insufficient to establish the charges. While it

is true that proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required in

disciplinary proceedings, the charges must nonetheless be

established on the touchstone of preponderance of

probabilities. In the instant case, the Enquiry Officer has

concluded against the petitioner by relying on photographs

allegedly produced by the villagers of Hanagodu, without any
- 11 -
WP No. 5313 of 2022

proof of the petitioner's presence in the said village or of his

having collected money from illegal sand miners.

16. On examination of the material on record and on

consideration of the submissions advanced by learned counsel

for the petitioner, we are of the view that there is no sufficient

evidence to establish the charges and it is case of no evidence

against the petitioner. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the

following:

ORDER

(i) Writ petition is allowed.

(ii) The order of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal dated 18.05.2021 in Application No.7068/2017 is set aside.

(iii) The order dated 14.08.2015 imposing punishment (Annexure-A16), order of the Appellate Authority dated 01.07.2016 (Annexure-A18), and the order dated 19.06.2017 (Annexure-A19) are hereby set aside.

Sd/-

(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

Sd/-

(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE VBS